This post is inspired by a tweet:
https://twitter.com/rblotnicky/status/592786638641717249/photo/1
Pointing out another facet of the Islamification of vaccines ... though in all fairness this one may not have been the deliberate lying of taqqiya, but rather, a "journalist" who did not do sufficient fact-checking prior to writing the editorial (aka: article).
There have been no deaths attributed to the "Disneyland" measles outbreak of 2014 - if there had been we would still be hearing about it.
A number of patients were intentionally unvaccinated ... and have now recovered and as a result will benefit from a lifetime of immunity. The intentionally vaccinated bore the risks of receiving the vaccine yet did not derive any benefit. 43% of cases had an unknown or undocumented vaccination status ... but given vaccination rates for MMR at ~92% it would be fair to suspect that a significant portion of this 43% had at least 1 dose of MMR vaccine which would impact estimates of "efficacy" negatively. The "solution" to this problem is always more vaccination ... a solution drug companies like - and this positive feedback loop has lead to the development of an ever increasing array of vaccines - most of which will no doubt also need to be given in repeated "boosters" in order to maintain "efficacy" - now that's a business model, especially since there is zero liability for any risk and/or failure of said products.
Those who advocate forced vaccination seem to be downright Machiavellian in their pursuit of achieving the vaccination of one and all, so they may not care if the deceit was inadvertent or unintentional.
It's a pity more journalists are not following the example of Sharyl Attkisson and Lawrence Solomon, who have written about vaccines with far greater balance and attention to little details referred to as facts.
The truth has nothing to fear from the lie ... regardless of whether the lie is deliberate or accidental. And the truth does not fear fact checking or the challenging of assumptions - two things that send chills down the spines of advocates of forced vaccination.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Focus - on the truth not fearing the lie
Background: The last week has brought another micro-controversy regarding vaccination, this time (primarily) inside the sub-culture of evangelical Christianity, specifically the niche of those who follow the para-church organization, Focus on the Family (founded by Dr. James Dobson). Thriving Families is one of their publications. In the April/May 2015 edition of their Thriving Families one of their medical advisers answered a question about vaccination. A blogger, Megan Heimer (http://www.livingwhole.org) published this response, "Dear Focus On the Family, You're On the Wrong Side of the Vaccine Controversy". It has gone viral and has been shared >10,000 times. According to Ms. Heimer, Focus on the Family (FOTF) has been deleting references to her post that have been shared or posted on FOTF's Facebook page - and that is the topic of today's post.
This post was written Sunday April 19, 2015 at 1830 (6:30pm EST) and I was able to find several links (at least 6 as of when this post was written) to Ms. Heimer's blog post - all posted by the same person (Charissa Kelly), each post with ~3-5 "likes", all posted on April 17 at 1435 (2:35pm), so the links have been up for at least 2 days - and all posted under a topic posted by FOTF, and unrelated to vaccination or the Thriving Families column to which Ms. Heimer initially responded. At least one of them was on a FOTF post that pre-dated Ms. Heimer's blog post! For the record - I did not contact either Ms. Heimer or FOTF prior to writing this blog post. I did post a comment in her private group (of which I am a member) in MeWe.com in response to her post reporting her allegations about FOTF's response to her blog post.
I'm entirely willing to give Ms. Heimer the benefit of the doubt in regards to her allegations about FOTF's response to her post (that they deleted references/links/posts to her blog about their column) - and it may be they have not yet scrubbed the links I found as I did some basic research/fact checking to write this post. Or perhaps they (FOTF) have received feedback about this tactic and have decided to abandon it. It's also inappropriate to post a link unrelated to the primary topic - though people might not feel the need to do that if posts were not being deleted.
While FOTF has every right to control the content of their page it is disingenuous to delete comments in response to something they published! I could find no guidelines on their Facebook page regarding any comment policy. Ms. Heimer's post was not disrespectful, nor inflammatory - she was clear and specific in how and why she disagreed with Dr. Hinthorn's column, and she provided links for supportive documentation/back-up for what she wrote.
Jesus did not shy away from any controversy and He does not fear our questions, instead He welcomes them. The truth has nothing to fear from the lie, and resorting to this sort of tactic (if true) reveals an insecurity about their position. He designed us to live in freedom and He respects our decisions even when they cause us pain and grieve Him - even if/when our decisions are sinful.
Christians are increasingly being scrubbed from public discourse (the marketplace of ideas) because positions conforming to a biblical worldview are contrary to the politically correct ideology that is increasingly dominant. It isn't surprising that non-Christians do not want their ideas challenged. It is surprising, and disappointing that a Christian organization is alleged to have resorted to suppression of an opinion challenging their own.
This post was written Sunday April 19, 2015 at 1830 (6:30pm EST) and I was able to find several links (at least 6 as of when this post was written) to Ms. Heimer's blog post - all posted by the same person (Charissa Kelly), each post with ~3-5 "likes", all posted on April 17 at 1435 (2:35pm), so the links have been up for at least 2 days - and all posted under a topic posted by FOTF, and unrelated to vaccination or the Thriving Families column to which Ms. Heimer initially responded. At least one of them was on a FOTF post that pre-dated Ms. Heimer's blog post! For the record - I did not contact either Ms. Heimer or FOTF prior to writing this blog post. I did post a comment in her private group (of which I am a member) in MeWe.com in response to her post reporting her allegations about FOTF's response to her blog post.
I'm entirely willing to give Ms. Heimer the benefit of the doubt in regards to her allegations about FOTF's response to her post (that they deleted references/links/posts to her blog about their column) - and it may be they have not yet scrubbed the links I found as I did some basic research/fact checking to write this post. Or perhaps they (FOTF) have received feedback about this tactic and have decided to abandon it. It's also inappropriate to post a link unrelated to the primary topic - though people might not feel the need to do that if posts were not being deleted.
While FOTF has every right to control the content of their page it is disingenuous to delete comments in response to something they published! I could find no guidelines on their Facebook page regarding any comment policy. Ms. Heimer's post was not disrespectful, nor inflammatory - she was clear and specific in how and why she disagreed with Dr. Hinthorn's column, and she provided links for supportive documentation/back-up for what she wrote.
Jesus did not shy away from any controversy and He does not fear our questions, instead He welcomes them. The truth has nothing to fear from the lie, and resorting to this sort of tactic (if true) reveals an insecurity about their position. He designed us to live in freedom and He respects our decisions even when they cause us pain and grieve Him - even if/when our decisions are sinful.
Christians are increasingly being scrubbed from public discourse (the marketplace of ideas) because positions conforming to a biblical worldview are contrary to the politically correct ideology that is increasingly dominant. It isn't surprising that non-Christians do not want their ideas challenged. It is surprising, and disappointing that a Christian organization is alleged to have resorted to suppression of an opinion challenging their own.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
The Islamification of vaccination ...
Taqqiya is the Islamic practice of lying, deceiving, or manipulating in order to advance Islam. Since The Truth has nothing to fear from the lie why do those who advocate vaccination feel the need to lie in order to get people to take vaccines?
A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.
The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.
The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!
Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.
The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.
A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.
The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.
The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!
Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.
The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The cracks in trust continue to grow ...
Healthcare providers and patients have placed great trust in researchers (both private and public) to provide data (information) and solutions to health problems based upon good data. Once trust is broken it is not easily regained.
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine."Even with just a cursory read of Dr. Angell's writing one would recognize she has no love for free-market medicine or market-based solutions in healthcare, and here she and I would disagree, as I think this would provide the best solutions for many problems in healthcare. The brilliance of the free market is that it reflects the collective expression of individual economic choices, and good ideas, good products do well because people demand more of them - the "mandate" grows from a groundswell of consumers requesting more of, and being willing to pay for a product rather than it being forced upon them in an authoritarian fashion.
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Friday, February 06, 2015
The ethics of arrogance ...
Arthur Caplan wrote an opinion piece that should send shivers down the spines of us all ... regardless of our views on vaccination.
It's part of the dangerous encroachment into the relationship between healthcare provider and client - a relationship that necessarily should remain private. We all live with choices that others make - for good or for ill, vaccination is just one of them, it isn't the only one.
Driving providers and patients into an underground relationship is not good for anyone
It's an absolutely stunning display of arrogance to demand conformity or else. Medical "evidence" and science have an amazing way of changing through the years - and the persistent pursuit of truth by "heretics" has benefited us all.
Consider Semmelweis, who was hounded by his peers for insisting upon the simple task of hand-washing prior to delivering a baby with a resultant plummeting of childbed fever or sepsis, which saved so many women.
Or consider stomach ulcers and the lengths to which the researcher who discovered H. pylori went before his theory was considered and incorporated into treatment (he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005).
Decades before research vindicated them midwives knew overuse of episiotomy was bad for women and generally not necessary. Conventional wisdom held that it prevented pelvic floor damage and protected the baby's brain ... and then we actually did the research, which demonstrated episiotomy increased risk of worse damage than spontaneous perineal tears and gasp! the perineum isn't dangerous to a baby's brain!
The bromide "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" was mainstream practice ... and then we actually did the research and "discovered" that VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) is a relatively reasonable risk to take for most women with a history of previous cesarean birth.
For years it was assumed that saturated fat was bad and caused heart disease. Now that is being challenged and it seems inflammation is implicated in heart disease, and well, many other health problems as well ... oh, wait - what happens after vaccination? Inflammation.
These are just a few examples of health care providers who were considered "crazy" for not passively accepting the prevailing medical dogma. They held minority positions in the face of unrelenting peer pressure and were ultimately proved right.
It's amazing what we find out when we try to find answers to questions.
Apparently a significant portion of our population is asking questions about vaccine safety and efficacy - in due time we might all benefit from listening to this minority's concerns ... after all, it's happened before - the precedents are almost too numerous to list, so it would be prudent not to be too arrogant or presumptuous about "settled science".
Many want more information about a product that has been described as "unavoidably unsafe" ... a product so "safe" it is legally shielded from any liability - which essentially removes any motivation for a manufacturer or provider of said product to make it any safer ... a product which is incredibly lucrative because its use is mandated by law ... a product which is recommended by experts who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturers ... a product embroiled not just in controversy about safety and efficacy, but allegations of fraud (Paul Thorsen, mumps/Merck fraud lawsuit, #CDCwhistleblower).
Many aspects of medical care are fraught with various degrees of risk vs benefit, and that is no different for vaccines - all should be free to determine which level of risk/benefit with which they are willing to live. Subjecting people to forced medical procedures is something that would make Dr. Mengele proud - he perfected this. Let's not follow his lead.
It's part of the dangerous encroachment into the relationship between healthcare provider and client - a relationship that necessarily should remain private. We all live with choices that others make - for good or for ill, vaccination is just one of them, it isn't the only one.
Driving providers and patients into an underground relationship is not good for anyone
It's an absolutely stunning display of arrogance to demand conformity or else. Medical "evidence" and science have an amazing way of changing through the years - and the persistent pursuit of truth by "heretics" has benefited us all.
Consider Semmelweis, who was hounded by his peers for insisting upon the simple task of hand-washing prior to delivering a baby with a resultant plummeting of childbed fever or sepsis, which saved so many women.
Or consider stomach ulcers and the lengths to which the researcher who discovered H. pylori went before his theory was considered and incorporated into treatment (he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005).
Decades before research vindicated them midwives knew overuse of episiotomy was bad for women and generally not necessary. Conventional wisdom held that it prevented pelvic floor damage and protected the baby's brain ... and then we actually did the research, which demonstrated episiotomy increased risk of worse damage than spontaneous perineal tears and gasp! the perineum isn't dangerous to a baby's brain!
The bromide "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" was mainstream practice ... and then we actually did the research and "discovered" that VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) is a relatively reasonable risk to take for most women with a history of previous cesarean birth.
For years it was assumed that saturated fat was bad and caused heart disease. Now that is being challenged and it seems inflammation is implicated in heart disease, and well, many other health problems as well ... oh, wait - what happens after vaccination? Inflammation.
These are just a few examples of health care providers who were considered "crazy" for not passively accepting the prevailing medical dogma. They held minority positions in the face of unrelenting peer pressure and were ultimately proved right.
It's amazing what we find out when we try to find answers to questions.
Apparently a significant portion of our population is asking questions about vaccine safety and efficacy - in due time we might all benefit from listening to this minority's concerns ... after all, it's happened before - the precedents are almost too numerous to list, so it would be prudent not to be too arrogant or presumptuous about "settled science".
Many want more information about a product that has been described as "unavoidably unsafe" ... a product so "safe" it is legally shielded from any liability - which essentially removes any motivation for a manufacturer or provider of said product to make it any safer ... a product which is incredibly lucrative because its use is mandated by law ... a product which is recommended by experts who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturers ... a product embroiled not just in controversy about safety and efficacy, but allegations of fraud (Paul Thorsen, mumps/Merck fraud lawsuit, #CDCwhistleblower).
Many aspects of medical care are fraught with various degrees of risk vs benefit, and that is no different for vaccines - all should be free to determine which level of risk/benefit with which they are willing to live. Subjecting people to forced medical procedures is something that would make Dr. Mengele proud - he perfected this. Let's not follow his lead.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Abortion and vaccines ... Part 5
Worthwhile reading:
This piece, "Villany, Virtue, and Vaccination" by Todd Erzen (@DeaceOnline) was posted to http://www.stevedeace.com this morning, and works an angle on vaccination and abortion that I had not considered. Both medical procedures involve coercion, and both involve widely unacknowledged risk (interestingly enough, more to the child than anyone else in both cases, but at least with vaccination the child generally lives, though not always).
As always, do your own research before making a decision to vaccinate. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.
You can always have an abortion (well, until the baby is born), but once you have an abortion you cannot un-do death - only Jesus can do that ... if you have had an abortion, help is available if you are suffering because of it. You can go to http://afterabortion.org/1999/articles-related-to-post-abortion-healing/ for starters. Or contact your local Pregnancy Resource Center, many of them offer post-abortion healing.
This piece, "Villany, Virtue, and Vaccination" by Todd Erzen (@DeaceOnline) was posted to http://www.stevedeace.com this morning, and works an angle on vaccination and abortion that I had not considered. Both medical procedures involve coercion, and both involve widely unacknowledged risk (interestingly enough, more to the child than anyone else in both cases, but at least with vaccination the child generally lives, though not always).
As always, do your own research before making a decision to vaccinate. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.
You can always have an abortion (well, until the baby is born), but once you have an abortion you cannot un-do death - only Jesus can do that ... if you have had an abortion, help is available if you are suffering because of it. You can go to http://afterabortion.org/1999/articles-related-to-post-abortion-healing/ for starters. Or contact your local Pregnancy Resource Center, many of them offer post-abortion healing.
Friday, January 09, 2015
What's so dangerous about a doctor?
An osteopath, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, from America was set to go to Australia and give a series of informational talks about vaccination. This tour is now in jeopardy because her views are so threatening to those who promote vaccination.
The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.
Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.
It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.
A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).
Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).
Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.
Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.
It seems vaccines may not be a good product.
I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.
Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/
Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)
The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.
Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.
It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.
A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).
Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).
Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.
Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.
It seems vaccines may not be a good product.
I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.
Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/
Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)